George Will talks about the absurdity of the fairness doctrine and the prospect of similarly-motivated laws being considered by the incoming Congress. Meanwhile, Matthew Yglesias and others think it absurd that there is even concern over this, that it's a red herring and that no one is seriously considering such legislation.
Such accusations of paranoia are an acceptable price, in my opinion.
Certainly you've seen "inconceivable" ideas amazingly come into reality over a short time, no? As Will points out, the fairness doctrine was the law of the land and upheld by the Supreme Court in recent history.
So is it paranoid to be arguing against the phantom of the fairness doctrine, since no tangible threat exists here in December 2008?
Nope. By pushing the argument now, perhaps even swatting at ghosts, Will makes it harder for those who might consider it one or two or five years from now. Keep the idea mocked and mockable. Define the parameters of the argument.
So, if the likelihood of a new fairness doctrine stands at 10% in 2008, making this argument now helps to ensure that it doesn't grow, and perhaps even shrinks. Let's make sure that interest doesn't start compounding. If the likelihood of the fairness doctrine in 2010 stands at 5% instead of 20 or 30%, then it's paranoia well-spent.
Comments